clubpenguinfanonfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Rollback Gun
This is really pointless, though -- a Rollback Remote has the exact same function. And Benny wouldn't approve of wasting resources. ' ' [[User:Explorer 767|'Explorer 767']] ([[User talk:Explorer 767|'OBEY YOUR PROPELLER LORD! MWAHAHA']]) View this template 17:25, July 23, 2010 (UTC) n00b EXPLORER! YOU FOOL! This has been mentioned TONS of times. And it's a GOOD ARTICLE. And you delete it for some stupid reason. Honestly. Sometimes I think we have admins that don't make standards. --[[User:Austin8310|'Austin8310']]-YOU MAGGOTS!-Private Eastshield 22:25, July 24, 2010 (UTC) Then rewrite it under the name "Rollback Remote". Seriously, there's no difference between a Rollback Gun and a Rollback Remote. Plus, remotes are easier to store -- in your pocket. ' ' [[User:Explorer 767|'Explorer 767']] ([[User talk:Explorer 767|'OBEY YOUR PROPELLER LORD! MWAHAHA']]) View this template 00:20, July 25, 2010 (UTC) There's already a Rollback Remote article. rolls eyes. And guns have longer range, a scope, a shield, and much more feautures. Honestly. It's like the EPF Phone. The upgrade of a Spy Phone. And why'd you delete it? It was a good article and a MQA2. Just because you don't like the idea doesn't mean you can randomly delete it. Honestly, I doubt you're perfect for being an admin. Rollback Remote rolls eyes Also, to heck with "range"; that has nothing to do with efficiency in rollbacking. When a rollback function is initiated it always reverts the most recent events, going back in time until the function is terminated. A scope is pointless. A protection shield is defaulted in most remotes. I'm just saying, a Rollback Remote can do all that stuff without being bloated and having pointless additions. ' ' [[User:Explorer 767|'Explorer 767']] ([[User talk:Explorer 767|'OBEY YOUR PROPELLER LORD! MWAHAHA']]) View this template 01:38, July 25, 2010 (UTC) You had no reason to delete it. And guns are better than remotes. Plus, we can change it so it's popular among workers but not a requirement. --[[User:Austin8310|'Austin8310']]-YOU MAGGOTS!-Private Eastshield 01:39, July 25, 2010 (UTC) You had no reason to delete it. :So I suppose my edit summary in the deletion log and message above mean absolutely nothing to you. How insightful. And guns are better than remotes. :No. I just proved that a remote can do anything a rollback gun can do, and that rollback guns have pointless features that don't supplement their efficiency. Plus, we can change it so it's popular among workers but not a requirement. :Then Benny wouldn't approve of it. Wasting money on designing and mass-producing a device that can do the same thing as a more compact, energy-efficient remote can do is not something Benny endorses. ' ' [[User:Explorer 767|'Explorer 767']] ([[User talk:Explorer 767|'OBEY YOUR PROPELLER LORD! MWAHAHA']]) View this template 01:43, July 25, 2010 (UTC) Explorer, the article said (before you deleted it the second time) that Director Benny did not approve and threw the guns in the trash, but McFlapp kept them.--Error 404: Signature not found. Possible reasons why this may have happened are: Not found. 01:51, July 25, 2010 (UTC) McFlapp LIKES remotes. Besides, guns aren't as compact as remotes, plus they don't even have additional features. Remotes are easier to store and they do just as much. ' ' [[User:Explorer 767|'Explorer 767']] ([[User talk:Explorer 767|'OBEY YOUR PROPELLER LORD! MWAHAHA']]) View this template 01:53, July 25, 2010 (UTC) Explorer, it's in CANON. Look at RTF. It says that A ROLLBACK GUN was developed. And a ROLLBACK GRENADE. Not just a remote. Plus, you're just ignoring the subject. There was NO REASON to delete this article. AT ALL.--[[User:Austin8310|'Austin8310']]-YOU MAGGOTS!-Private Eastshield 03:09, July 25, 2010 (UTC) I have a weird idea. How about a device that can rollback stuff that has the shape of a Rollback Remote and a Rollback Gun. You can change between by pressing a red button (on top of the gun and on the back of the remote). Same features too; epic win. Who agrees? 03:14, July 25, 2010 (UTC) Simple and effective solution: Give the Rollback Remote to higher-ups / masters of the universe, and give the Rollback Gun to military forces. However, make the Rollback Gun have less functions than a Rollback Remote - so a remote would have more power than the gun. Just because you have a problem with it being a gun doesn't give you an excuse to delete it though. http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/1254/lockkey.png [[User:Z_K|'ZoneKill']] [[User_talk:Z_K|'T']] 03:30, July 25, 2010 (UTC) :I'm with Zone... --Dan Beronews (Talk/Edits/Blog) 10:58, July 25, 2010 (UTC) ::I 'gree with Zone. --Sir Kwiksilver of TARDIS-The fez is now cool. 12:39, July 25, 2010 (UTC) Point taken. Though the OOC policy technically does give me an excuse to delete it. Explorer, it's in CANON. :Where? I don't recall seeing rollback guns in CP. There was NO REASON to delete this article. AT ALL. :Reason much? BTW, you're going to have to rewrite both articles. ' ' [[User:Explorer 767|'Explorer 767']] ([[User talk:Explorer 767|'OBEY YOUR PROPELLER LORD! MWAHAHA']]) View this template 12:23, July 25, 2010 (UTC) I prefer Explorer's idea. --[[User:Zapwire|'Zapwire']] (dial the waaaambulance) 13:30, July 25, 2010 (UTC) WOULD EVERYONE SHUT UP?!? First of all this was MY idea. I was the first to put it into the RTF and have a character use it. What I intended was for this to be made by rogue fourth wall breakers but end up in the hands of normal penguins. -- Firmato per Il Dirigente Conversazione verso Il Dirigente 13:04, July 25, 2010 (UTC)